Chad got a solid no when he asked Ford reps about a diesel option for the US-spec Ranger. But then again, we haven't even heard whether the Ranger Raptor will come to the States yet, so who knows what the company is keeping in its back pocket? Would you be interested in a diesel version of the Ranger? Chad seems to think it's a good idea—especially since Ford allows folks to configure their trucks so many different ways...

 

If there was no price differential, yes. Diesel here in California is almost $4/gallon.

 

Think about this: 2018 Colorado 4wd 2.8 Diesel gets 20/28 MPG. 2018 F-150 4wd 2.7 gets 19/24 MPG. It's not unrealistic to me to think the 2.3 EB Ranger 4wd will be rated @ 21/26 MPG (maybe 21/27). That is Colorado diesel territory all while surely doing it much faster and funner. It will likely tow better than the diesel in terms of performance while not achieving the mpg towing that a diesel will get. So the 2.0 for Ford would likely break the 30 MPG threshold. I would personally not buy the diesel for a measly 3mpg and give up all the performance of the gas engine. I do wish Ford would offer it though because there is a market for it, even though I don't think it makes sense....Now offer me a 2.7EB in the Ranger 4wd with a 20/25 rating and all that amazing performance and I'd fall in love.

 

Let's see: Would I want to pay a premium for a diesel engine and which requires more maintenance and uses more expensive fuel? Probably not!

 

Negative. Diesel's are a joke.

 

comparing engines of similar size the diesel will out pull the gas engine every time. even if the gas is turbocharged...
if you don't tow or use your truck at least 50% of your miles. it's a waste of money to have the diesel.

 

You hit the nail right on the head. I have owned 2 modern day diesels and one older diesel.

These modern day diesels are different animals. When I was looking at buying my mid-size, I specifically told the dealership not to even waste my time showing me a diesel option.

The only reason for me not enjoying the diesels these days is ONLY for the emissions equipment they have to have.

- Preston

 

Yup, nothing is cheap in Cali. That said, I miss the tacos and sunshine. Now, I'm back in Seattle.

 

Interesting thoughts. I figured everyone would want a Ranger diesel. I owned a 2001 VW with the ALH 2.0 engine (long before they got busted for fudging their emissions data). I would own a diesel Ranger in a heartbeat.

What makes you guys think that maintenance requirements are more than a gas engine? I hardly did any maintenance on the VW (aside from oil/air filter changes). In 137K miles, I changed one glow plug. Yeah, it took fuel conditioner in the winter but I made sure to get fuel from a station that had a lot of truck traffic (the fuel was always fresh). Diesel in Illinois is about $0.30 more than gas (I can't figure how because it takes less work to refine diesel fuel, compared to gasoline). I guess you have to add fluid to help with emissions though. Still, I'll bet the maintenance intervals, gas v diesel, aren't even close.

I do tow a small camper trailer (~1 ton). I'll bet the 3.2 wouldn't even notice it was back there.

 

If Ford ecoboosted their 6.2 they might never sell a diesel in their Superdutys again. If they ecoboosted their 5.0 in F150s it wouldn’t be might, they wouldn’t sell a v6 ever again.The only argument for diesel is perhaps longevity and not necessarily at that. This ecoboost stuff has been a gigantic success for Ford. I’m sure the Ranger engine will be plenty for that lil a truck considering how the 2.7 moves the F150. I just wish they’d consider at least offering a v8 version of the ecoboost in their F150s you know for us hot rodders out there

 

Our contractor bud moved from an old diesel F350 to a 2016(?) with a 6.2 and says he has to fill his tank twice as often... But especially in smaller, lighter vehicles, the payback for a diesel engine's initial cost is gonna take a long time and if diesels remain rare, service and parts are gonna be harder to find than a more common drivetrain. The 2.3 EB is in the Mustang, Explorer, etc so there will be a lot of them out there.

That said, this article on the 2019 Transit Connect implies that a new 1.5 liter "EcoBlue" turbo diesel will be available in the US in addition to a 2.0 liter gas engine. I wonder if this might be a new engine line with the possibility of larger displacements which could be used in the new Ranger and Bronco. EDIT--there is a 2.0 liter version of the EcoBlue being used in the Australian Ranger Raptor, so this may signal the future of Ford diesel engines and we *may* see them in the US Ranger if the 1.5 liter version is successful in the Transit Connect.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/2019-ford...050100633.html

 

Well hold the phone a second...

I have owned two Jeeps with the 2.8L diesel, the same diesel that is now in the Colorado in updated form. My experience is that after tuning the Jeep (to the power levels that the Colorado has from the factory) I was averaging 26 MPGs on my weekly driving circuit which is about 45% city and 55% highway. There were many reports of guys seeing 30 MPGs strictly highway. When I hooked onto a 7,000 lb. trailer, I was seeing 14-16 MPGs depending on how hilly the terrain was.

Now look at the EcoBoost trucks. They are NOT getting anywhere near 26 MPGs average, and guys who tow several thousand pounds with them are reporting single digit MPGs. That's 1970s Big Block V8 type of gas mileage right there.

My diesel would also hold top gear regardless of grade on the highway. Gas engines shift constantly.

My point is this: in the midsize truck segment the gas vs. diesel argument is a totally different ball game. In this case, the diesel will see significantly higher fuel economy, and will tow significantly better when loaded too. The gas engine will outrun it in a drag race, but the diesel will out-perform it in every other category hands down.

If they keep the price in check, the diesel will be the way to go. If Ford does not offer a diesel in the Ranger, I will start looking at Colorados. It will pain me greatly to consider a GM product...but if that's the only company offering what I want, then so be it. I may also look at the Jeep JT with the diesel. GM and FCA will both have midsize diesel pickups by the end of this year. Ford will be once again left out.

 

Obviously you have not seen the power or Torque numbers of the 2.3L Ecoboost. Even in the F150, the 3.5L will give the 3.0L Diesel a run for it's money, towing wise. Your 2.8L TUNED Diesel holds top gear? So what? Is it worth it to pay $4000 for an engine with a bunch of emissions crap, extra complicated and sensitive fuel system? An Engine as a daily driver can't get out of it's own way while sucking extra expensive fuel? The idea is a novelty. If you like to spend money on novel toys then by all means, buy a Colorado for $38,000-$40,000.

 

Last I heard about the Mopar 3.0 diesel, FCA was involved in a lawsuit with the EPA, and the 3.0 does not appear in the 2018 Grand Cherokee literature.

The 2018.5 Wrangler will also offer a turbo 4 cylinder gas engine.

It is hard meeting US emissions with diesels. And "holding top gear" is not a measure of the effectiveness of drivetrains. Especially as we head toward 8, 9, and 10 speed transmissions, they will make use of engine power curves in the real world and you will hardly ever see "top gear"...

I don't believe there is a significant future for diesels in the US. More likely we will see partial-hybrids to assist in power.

 

That hyrbid bit is already happening.